Template talk:Bginfo
Bad idea? This might be a bad idea. here's why. Strange that this fairly unnecessary bginfo template went through without any problems but the quote template is stalled for years. --bp 13:36, February 17, 2010 (UTC) More lines needed Recently, as detailed at Talk:Starfleet uniform (late 2360s-early 2370s)#Overfull bginfo box, we ran into a problem on the corresponding article where a bginfo box was "hiding" a few paragraphs of text within because it only supports 3 paragraphs. The text was written back when we just used indented italicized blocks of text for background info, so when it was changed verbatim to a bginfo template, it got truncated (at least in visible mode--the additional text was still visible in source mode). Currently a workaround is in place that uses tags, but the spacing isn't quite right--it makes some of the paragraphs look like they're running together. I tried replicating the bginfo box's tags manually, but it seems that messes things up since it's already within the bginfo box's . What we really need is to extend the bginfo template's capabilities so it can handle more lines. The rule as currently stated on Template:Bginfo/doc is that background sections with more than 3 paragraphs should be placed in a "Background Information" section instead of a box; however, in cases like the aforementioned one, that can be a little hard as the information refers specifically to one part of the article, not the entire article as would background info placed at the end. -Mdettweiler 03:48, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :I wouldn't have a problem with this, since pushing all this stuff down to the bottom of the article would reduced the readability significantly, not to mention force a reformat of the article spacing. - 03:58, August 4, 2010 (UTC) ::I'm not a fan of big bginfo boxes, and don't think there should ever be more than 3 lines in one. (The same goes for the big blocks of italic text in the old formatting rules, it looked ugly) In the Starfleet uniform (2366-2370s) case, I think we could instead have individual "Background" sections with a smaller (level 4) heading under each type (which have level 3 headings).– Cleanse ( talk | ) 06:34, August 4, 2010 (UTC) :I also thought of that, but it just complicates the TOC IMO; and it also means we keep switching POVs by header only, which is/could be confusing. I actually lean more for a block of text in this case, but I get what you're saying. - 07:13, August 4, 2010 (UTC) Agreed--that would be quite confusing. But what if instead of modifying the bginfo template, we made another template--say, ? The idea being that the separate template would encourage using it only sparingly--perhaps a note could be made on the BigBginfo doc page that it should only be used when the talk page consensus is that it's OK in that particular instance. -Mdettweiler 22:56, August 5, 2010 (UTC) :That sounds like a good idea, since having a separate template would also allow us to see where it's used without running a bot. I don't think people should have to ask permission first though, be bold and all that, but saying it should only be used where an actual background section would be confusing or significantly reduce readability sounds good. Also, no caps in a template ( ), the stupid one trips me up enough! - 04:18, August 6, 2010 (UTC)